V. 








THE PORTO RICO BILL. 



SPEECH 



Hon. JAMES M. E. O'GRADY. 



OF NEW YORK, 



IN THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



APRIL 11, 1900. 



WASHINGTON. 

1900. 




J 



FT / 
,6/3 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2D^%ifh e fL?n r ^ngfro^ 
The LibJSr^d'f'CbHgress 



http://www.archive.brg/details/portoricobillOOogra 



- 

k 

ri 






SPEECH 

OF 

HOX. JAMES M. E. O'GRADY 



The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 8345) entitled "An 
act temporarily to provide revenues for the relief of the island of Porto 
Rico," and for other purposes — 

Mr. 0"GRADY'said: 

Mr. Speaker: The bill for the financial l'elief of Porto Rico has 
been so exhaustively debated in this House that I would not ven- 
ture to discuss it now were it not for the fact that one or two 
phases of the question have been but indifferent!} 7 considered: and 
I do not believe that enough stress has been laid upon the duty our 
couutry owes to its own people and its own institutions, while 
altogether too much importance is put upon what is claimed is 
our plain duty toward the island possessions held by us now as the 
fortune of war. Porto Rico came to us unexpectedly, but as the 
result of the universal demand of our people that Spanish rule in 
the Western Hemisphere should cease. It came to us at the de- 
mand of an armed and powerful force, led by the commanding 
general of the American Army. To say it came to us with open 
arms is a pleasant and agreeable fiction. 

If the people of Porto Rico met our Army with shouts and ac- 
clamations, remember that they had few guns and less ammuni- 
tion, and that they were pursuing the wisest course under such 
circumstances. All accounts go to prove that prior to the war 
Porto Rico was entirely loyal to Spain. There was little, if any, 
civil disturbance there even after the intervention of this country 
in the Cuban insurrection, when Spain"s hands were full trying 
to stem the tide against her. Porto Rico, therefore, stands in ex- 
actly the same position as any other territory reverting to the 
successful contestants as the price of peace or the indemnity for 
war expense, or the result of the exigency of the situation — a sort 
of geographical necessity. What shall be done with her, andhow 
best shall she be aided in working out her destiny and preparing 
herself for the full measure of American liberty? 

On the constitutional questions, Mr. Speaker, my mind is clear. 
I have studied carefully the opinions of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, upon which the other side of this House relies for 
its authority, and those upon which the Republican party bases 
its action. There is some authority on both sides, I admit. But 
I find. Mr. Speaker, that when I invoke to my aid common sense 
and the principles of international law and comity and apply 
them to the constitutional question, a glare of light is thrown on 
the subject, and there is no trouble for me to understand what is 
meant by the decisions. 

The doctrine that the Constitution ex pjroprio vigore (by its own 
force) extended over all territory belonging to the United States 
was first invoked in the unholy cause of slaverv. The Western 
4331 3 



Territories were demanding anti-slavery laws, and the belief that 
this iniquitous institution was becoming weaker in what were 
soon to be new States caused Calhoun and his followers to discover 
that the Constitution had already extended over these prospective 
States, in only one particular, however, to the extent of forbidding 
the passage of anti-slavery laws by Congress or Territorial legis- 
latures. It never was invoked in any serious contention prior to 
that; and while the Supreme Court has touched upon it in one or 
two cases since, these are of little consequence, and the court so 
indicates in its opinions. 

To this doctrine of Calhoun I can make no better answer and 
in no stronger and clearer terms than that of the Republicans of 
1858 and 1860 assembled in national convention. In 1856 the He- 
publican party in its national platform declared: 

Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power 
over the Territories of the United States for their government, and that in 
the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to 
prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and 
slavery. 

In 1860 the Republican party again in no uncertain language 
condemned Calhounism in these vigorous words: 

The new dogma, that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into 
any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political 
heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of the instrument itself, with 
contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and jtidicial precedent, is 
revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of 
the country. 

On that platform the country was carried and Abraham Lincoln 
elected, and a bloody war placed the deadly seal of its disapproval 
upon that doctrine. 

Mr. Speaker, what is meant by the terms ' ' sovereign power, " ' ' the 
sovereignty of the people," "national sovereignty?" Ourfriendson 
the other side seem to think that they are terms of limitation and 
and intended to curtail the power of the American people. I can 
not place this interpretation upon them. 

The best lexicographers define "sovereign" as supreme power; 
possessing supreme dominion; not subject to another; the power 
exercising supreme control or dominion and to which allegiance 
is due. 

Cooley defines sovereignty as the supreme, absolute, uncon- 
trollable power by which any State is governed. 

Halleck calls it the political authority, whether vested in a sin- 
gle individual or in a number of individuals, to order and direct 
what is to be done by each individual in relation to the end and 
object of the state. Thus in the United States, sovereignty is 
vested in the body of adult male citizens. 

Maine says that this person or combination of persons has in all 
communities one characteristic common to all the shapes sover- 
eignty may take, the possession of irresistible force. The sover- 
eign, if a single person, is a monarch; if a small group, the name 
is an oligarchy; if a group of considerable dimensions, an aristoc- 
racy; if very large and numerous, a democracy. 

Mr. Speaker, in all of these definitions we find one essential to 
complete sovereignty — power unlimited within the sphere of gov- 
ernmental influence. Is a government of the people any less potent 
than that of a usurper? Is the United States lacking in some of 
the attributes possessed by other nations? To admit that is mon- 
strous. It would prevent us waging a defensive war. Because, 

4331 



if engaged in sucha war, we could never enter the enemy's coun- 
try to drive him from it or to crush his armies. The contest would 
always have to be upon our own territory for fear that the end of 
the war might find us in possession of some of the enemy's coun- 
try, and this conquered country could never, according to the 
orators on the other side of this Chamber, be submitted to a period 
of probation and instruction. 

Such a contention carries its own refutation. No loyal Ameri- 
can, if he will but stop to think, will subscribe to it for a moment. 
Under its teaching American liberty and American institutions 
could never be spread upon the face of the earth; but hedged about 
by this incomprehensible, indefinite limitation of national power, 
the great American Republic must lay supine and helpless before 
the world. I never will admit that my country lacks in national 
attributes or is inferior in national power, in peace or in war, to 
the other great powers of the world; that the Republic of the peo- 
ple is not the equal of monarchical England, autocratic Russia, 
imperial Germany, or republican France. 

If the people of the United States, in whom rests the great 
power of the nation, can not avail themselves of the rights of 
national conquest, why did we dare go to war with Spain, even 
in a just cause? Are the people free, independent, and self- 
governing, less potent than when they are bound in the debasing 
fetters of autocratic or imperial statehood? Is the gladiator with 
every muscle in full play weaker in some intangible way than 
when loaded with chains? In our brief history we have fought 
successfully four foreign wars and one great civil war, for no one 
of which there would be the slightest justification were the con- 
tention of the opponents of this measure to be admitted. The 
only logical deduction is that the Constitution is extended to 
newly acquired territory only by specific enactment of Congress. 

And now, Mr. Speaker, what are the provisions of this bill now 
before the House for approval? It may be treated under two gen- 
eral heads: First, the raising of revenue for temporary purposes, 
and, second, the proposed scheme of government for the is] and. 

Let us consider for a moment the revenue feature of the bill. 
It is provided that there shall be a duty amounting to 15 per cent 
of the rates prescribed by the Dingiey tariff upon all goods enter- 
ing Porto Rico from the United States and upon all goods enter- 
ing the United States from Porto Rico, except only such articles 
as have heretofore been placed by Executive order upon the free 
list. Not 15 per cent flat, understand, but 15 per cent of the ex- 
isting tariff rates of the Dingiey law. 

It is further provided that there shall be a 5 cents per pound 
duty on coffee imported into the island to protect the coffee raised 
there, which is of a higher quality and could not exist in compe- 
tition with the cheap coffee of the South American countries. 
Since we have had possession of Porto Rico and it has been under 
military law, there has been established by order of the President 
a free list of articles which pay no duty. In the present bill this 
free list is continued in operation. It is well to examine it for a 
moment. From time to time there have been included plows, cane 
knives, agricultural implements, books and maps, quinine, fresh 
fish, machinery for agricultural and sugar-refining purposes, 
flour, rice, codfish, pork, bacon, rough lumber, fresh beef, mutton, 
sugar bagging, ccopers' wares, sugar casks and materials to make 
them, and school furniture. 

4331 



6 

Is there any hardship to Porto Rico here? Does not this list 
include all the necessaries of the people? What food stuff is 
omitted? What necessity of life lacking? All these articles are 
to continue to be admitted free of any duty whatever. Again, 
whenever the legislative assembly of Porto Rico shall provide a 
system of local taxation to support the government, the tariff of 
15 per cent shall cease, and in any event there shall be no tariff 
after March 1, 1902. And still again, the proceeds of the 15 
per cent tariff, not only that which is to be raised in Porto Rico 
but likewise the gross amount of all such duties received at the 
United States ports, are to be reserved for the exclusive benefit of 
Porto Rico and to be used for the expenses and needs of the island 
alone. 

What more generous treatment could the island obtain from 
any country? We did not do this in the case of Louisiana or 
Florida or ' California or the Gadsden purchase or Alaska. In 
the case of these Territories the receipts from tariff taxes were 
covered into the National Treasury for the benefit of the whole 
country. But in the case of Porto Rico every dollar goes back to 
the island and for its own domestic purposes. 

Now, let us see if the method of raising the revenue is unjust 
or a hardship to the island. Revenue must be raised from some 
source and in some practical way. It seems to me that we are 
limited to one of three or four methods, namely, either by a di- 
rect appropriation from the Treasury of the United States, or by 
direct taxation upon land, or by a loan, or the method contem- 
plated by this bill— that is, a low tariff on imports and exports 
that will distribute evenly and lightly the burdens of supporting 
the government. Our people would not be willing to see a direct 
appropriation from the Treasury for the benefit of Porto Rico. 
If the island is to be self-supporting, let it be so from the start; if 
it can not maintain itself now and at once, we were much better 
rid of it. 

Direct taxation will not do, because, according to General Davis, 
outside of the municipalities there is but little to tax, and since 
the terrible hurricane the rural communities are without the 
means or ability to pay direct taxes; nor is there any method by 
which direct taxes can be equitably distributed among all the 
people. General Davis says that 75 per cent of the males over 21 
years of age are abjectly poor. 

They live in huts made of sticks and poles covered over with thatches of 
palm leaves. A family of a dozen may be huddled together in one room, 
often with only a dirt floor. They have little food worthy of the name and 
only the most scanty clothing, while children of less than seven or eight 
years are often entirely naked. A few may own a machete or a hoe, but 
more have no worldly possessions whatever. Their food is fruit, and if they 
are wage-earners, a little rice and codfish in addition. 

It is useless to talk about direct taxation with such a people as 
this unless time is taken to develop some new and equitable sys- 
tem, and to educate the people to understand and submit to it. 

As far as a loan is concerned, in order to make one there must 
be a government in Porto Rico in working order with all its ma- 
chinery, such as is provided by the Senate bill. In order to obtain 
a reasonably low rate of interest there must be a regularly estab- 
lished government of sufficient stability to insure a proper return 
of the loan. 

Indirect taxation is therefore the only logical and feasible sys- 

4331 



tem of raising this necessary revenue. There is certainly no 
hardship about it, and it can be terminated under the bill just as 
soon as the Porto Ricans themselves desire it and manifest by 
their votes and voices a wish to substitute some other method of 
taxation. In every State of the Union indirect taxation is being 
resorted to to lighten the burdens of direct taxation which weigh 
so heavily upon land. To say that temporarily, until the in- 
habitants can be adjusted or adjust themselves to American 
methods of living and learn how to enjoy benefits of American 
citizenship, the Porto Ricans can not raise their revenue in this 
way is to subject them to hardships that we would not force upon 
our own people. 

The methods of taxation in Porto Rico have always been what 
are known as tariff taxes, most of them unjust and burdensome. 
These have been largely abolished because of then- hardship. To 
introduce a new method of internal taxation will require time— at 
least a year, possibly longer. Experts are now in the island or on 
their way there, called for by the military governor to advise with 
him concerning the new methods and new ways of raising in- 
ternal revenue. Shall we refuse them a reasonable time for their 
investigation? 

Our Democratic friends on the other side of the Chamber have 
been denouncing the tariff as having been imposed in the inter- 
ests of the trusts. If this were true, it would be very wicked and 
reprehensible. But inasmuch as they are always making us out 
to'be the champions of evil things, the accusation from their lips 
falls flat and does not ring true. The two trusts that are aimed 
at by their clamor are presumably the sugar and tobacco trusts. 
By what process of reasoning can it be conceived that the sugar 
trust is in favor of a duty on its raw sugar, the only sugar product 
that Porto Rico will bring to the United States market? 

And how can a tariff upon the tobacco grown in the island help 
the tobacco trust? Is it not to the plain interest of both of these 
trusts to demand no tariff at all on its raw sugar and its raw to- 
bacco? As a matter of fact, they are behind the movement in 
favor of free trade, because they see very plainly that under this 
present tariff bill they must pay their share toward the expenses of 
the island and help bear the burden that they prefer to shirk to the 
backs of some one else. Is it not plain to the most casual observer 
who stons to consider the subject but for a moment that when we 
give to Porto Rico the President's free list, and return to them 
every dollar collected from the tariff and indicate in no uncertain 
terms that this plan is but temporary and to last only so long as the 
island is in the transition stage from Spanish to American citizen- 
ship, that Congress is extending to them a helping hand in the 
true spirit of the brotherhood of the great Republic? 

I would be the last one, by my voice or vote, to countenance for 
one moment the exploitation of this new Territory for the benefit 
of the United States. I am unalterably opposed to such a course. 
I would never vote for this bill did I believe that such a motive 
dictated its passage. I feel that Providence has placed in our 
hands this opportunity of demonstrating to the world that the 
American idea of liberty and freedom can flourish in tropical and 
semitropical lands, and, true to their traditions and teachings, I 
feel that the American people will rise to their opportunity, and 
with the dawning of the new century there will burst upon the 
downtrodden and oppressed in every land, east and west, north 
4331 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

llll II Hill Hill II 



009 109 502 6 



8 

and south, the knowledge that the brotherhood of man is the only 
true sign of liberty and hope of future earthly progress. 

I lack the time to enter into an exhaustive treatment of the 
governmental features of this bill. Other men who, because of 
their special work in connection with the plans of Territorial gov- 
ernment proposed for Porto Rico and Hawaii, have given study 
to the subject will doubtless expound its various features. It is 
enough to say that the best precedents furnished by the action of 
Congress in the case of former territorial acquisitions have been 
followed. No innovations are attempted. In dealing with this 
island and its psople the fact should be borne in mind that it has had 
no preparation for American government. Four hundred years 
it has been Spanish, and it is to-day Spanish in customs, in man- 
ners, in morals, and in ideals. If it is ever truly American, all of 
these conditions must be completely changed and many of them 
absolutely eradicated. 

We believe that they all wish to become good American citi- 
zens, but it is our bounden duty to discourage any hesitancy 
upon their part. We will find at every stage discouragements 
and disappointments. But we can not turn back, We must im- 
press upon them kindly but firmly that for them Spain is a tra- 
dition, America a reality. Our citizenship and our institutions 
will impress themselves upon the Porto Ricans slowly. They 
will doubtless regret often their former relationship with easy- 
going, decaying old Spain. Their regeneration will cost them 
many a pang. But the helping hand and the guiding voice of 
the American people will be always present to them. 

Under the terms of this bill theymaj 7 with unprecedented celer- 
ity assume to govern themselves. Whether they will at an 
early date avail themselves of the opportunity is accompanied 
with grave doubts. The experience is not encouraging in this 
direction. In the face of great public interest a municipal elec- 
tion in one of the towns developed a vote of less than 5 per cent 
of the voting population was polled. Bu t t by this bill we give 
them the opportunity and can only trust that it will be quickly 
embraced. 

As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I may be pardoned the observation 
that were we not on the eve of a Presidential election there would 
not be a party alignment on the passage of this bill. In all the 
debate there has been had in opposition to it I have not heard a 
single alternative suggestion from the opposition. No substitute 
measure is proposed. As usual, all they wish is to break down 
the affirmative legislation. Their voice is negative. But I am 
not fearful of the result of this bill. I have an abiding faith in 
the American people, in their judgment and their common sense. 
They will know whether justice or injustice has been done. 

They will be quick to discern whether an honest effort has been 
made to meet an unusual situation, and with that fairness that 
always characterizes them they will brush aside the sophistry and 
vagaries of Democratic oratory and pin their faith in the future 
as in the past to the party that dares to do right. It is not the 
first time that Republican policy has been assailed and maligned. 
buX.Republican policy has always triumphed and has never failed 
to become the country's policy and the national law. [Loud ap- 
-pKuseK)n :the Republican side.] 
-^ 4331 * ■' 

*--:. ■■-:*.■". O 



